wisconsin department of transportation...human service coordination model • technical memo 1 final...

$: WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION...Human Service Coordination Model • Technical Memo 1 FINAL WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Page 1-2 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates$
Wisconsin Human Service Transportation Coordination ModelTECHNICAL MEMO 1 FINAL

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

July 2008

H u m a n S e r v i c e C o o r d i n a t i o n M o d e l • T e c h n i c a l M e m o 1 F I N A L

W I S C O N S I N D E P A R T M E N T O F T R A N S P O R T A T I O N

Table of Contents

Page i • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

PAGE

Chapter 1. Introduction.............................................................................................1-1 Project Summary ........................................................................................................1-1 Task Goals .................................................................................................................1-2 Task Methodology......................................................................................................1-2 Tech Memo Organization...........................................................................................1-3

Chapter 2. Overview of Federal Coordination Requirements ....................................2-1 Historical Perspective.................................................................................................2-1 SAFETEA-LU...............................................................................................................2-2 Federal Council on Coordinated Access and Mobility .................................................2-2

Chapter 3. Federal Funding Sources for Transportation.............................................3-1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................3-1 Department of Health and Human Services ................................................................3-3 Department of Education............................................................................................3-7 Department of Labor ..................................................................................................3-8 Department of Transportation.....................................................................................3-9 Department of Housing and Urban Development.....................................................3-11

Chapter 4. Wisconsin State Transportation Programs................................................4-1 Overview...................................................................................................................4-1 Public and Specialized Transportation Programs........................................................4-5 Human Service Transportation Programs ..................................................................4-10 Coordination and Reporting Requirements ...............................................................4-17

Chapter 5. Assessment of State Agency Funding Programs ........................................5-1 Assets and Opportunities............................................................................................5-1 Barriers and Challenges ..............................................................................................5-2

Chapter 6. Key Findings/Next Steps...........................................................................6-1 Overview...................................................................................................................6-1 Key Findings ..............................................................................................................6-1

Appendix A Interview Guide

Appendix B List of Completed Interviews

Appendix C Overview of Federal Funding Available for Transportation (By Department and Program)



Table of Figures

Page ii • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

PAGE

Figure 3-1 Key Federal Programs with Transportation Components............................3-2 Figure 4-1 Federal Programs and Wisconsin State and

Local Administering Departments .............................................................4-2 Figure 4-2 Overview of Wisconsin Transportation Funding

(includes State and Federal programs) .......................................................4-4 Figure 4-3 Overview of Federal and State Funded Transportation Programs

in Wisconsin ..........................................................................................4-18 Figure 4-4 Key Statistics Associated with State Funded Community Transportation

Programs in Wisconsin ...........................................................................4-20 Figure 4-5 Wisconsin Federal and State Transportation Funding Programs –

Coordination Requirements and Efforts ...................................................4-21 Figure 5-1 Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats .................5-5



Page 1-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Chapter 1. Introduction Project Summary The State of Wisconsin has been pursuing coordination as a strategy to enhance transportation service efficiency and increase the mobility of Wisconsin residents for several years. Three recent legislative actions are working to increase the prominence of coordination as a key strategy, both at the federal and state levels:

The revised Federal Transportation Act, SAFETEA-LU, signed into law on August 10, 2005 requires all entitles receiving federal program money for three federal funding programs – Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities (Section 5310), Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (Section 5316) and New Freedom Program (Section 5317) - to have a “locally developed coordinated public transit human services transportation plan.”

In 2005, Governor James Doyle charged a group of individuals from a number of state agencies to form the Interagency Council on Transportation Coordination (ICTC). The ICTC is dedicated to “creating a coordinated, accessible, affordable, dependable, safe, statewide system providing the best transportation services to transportation disadvantaged individuals in Wisconsin”.

Presidential Executive Order 13330 on the Coordination of Human Service Programs issued by the President on February 24, 2004, created an interdepartmental Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM). The mission of the CCAM is to undertake collective and individual departmental actions to reduce duplication among federally-funded human service transportation services, increase the efficient delivery of such services and expand transportation access for older individuals, persons with disabilities, persons with low income, children and other disadvantaged populations within their own communities.

In response to these initiatives and the on-going coordination efforts in the State, the ICTC, in conjunction with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT), retained the consulting team of Nelson\Nygaard and RLS & Associates to develop a Human Service Transportation (HST) Coordination Model for the State of Wisconsin. Key goals for this research are to collect data, assess needs and recommend actions towards a state model of transportation coordination with prioritized implementation strategies. This effort is partially funded with United We Ride (UWR) Implementation Grant Funds and is part of the ICTC work plan. The four major tasks associated with developing a recommended coordination model for the State of Wisconsin include the following:

Document state agency programs –The objective of this task is to identify and document state agency programs that fund human service transportation and the extent to which these funded services are used and coordinated.




Identify gaps and barriers – There are two key objectives associated with this task; (1) develop, test and finalize an assessment process that can be used throughout the state to gauge and evaluate coordination status and (2) as the assessment process is tested in the field, evaluate current coordination efforts at the 10 counties and two mini regions that have been selected by the ICTC for inclusion in this study and develop an understanding of coordination perspectives and priorities in these areas.

Identify and compare Wisconsin with other states’ coordination models – Building on data collection and analysis of both state agency and local level coordination efforts in Wisconsin, we will look externally to consider approaches adopted by other states and associated effectiveness at improving HST coordination.

Recommend HST Coordination Models – Our final task will be to recommend a HST coordination model for the State of Wisconsin. This model will be crafted around appropriate and effective strategies that can realistically be implemented based on the socio-demographic characteristics of the state and working within the local political environment.

Task Goals This technical memorandum documents initial analysis and key findings associated with a review of state agency transportation funding programs. The focus is on “community transportation programs”, defined here as public transit and human service transportation services that focus on the constituency groups of persons with disabilities, older adults and persons with low incomes. This technical memo is the first in a series of three working papers that will be submitted as part of this study; these technical memos will ultimately be incorporated into a final report.

The objective of this first task is to document existing state agency programs that fund public transit and human service transportation programs in the State of Wisconsin. The documentation of existing state transportation programs includes procedures for applying and distributing federal and state resources as well as program policies, administrative rules, guiding legislation and potential data sharing or funding restrictions. Our goals for this task included using our baseline assessment of transportation funding to develop an initial set of potential recommendations that have potential to improve coordination efforts from a top-down perspective.

Task Methodology We completed this task by building upon a list of community transportation funding agencies and programs in Wisconsin as prepared by WisDOT and other members of the ICTC. The methodology employed consisted of the following steps:

1. Craft an interview guide and data collection checklist to be used when visiting and interviewing state agency program staff. A copy of this interview guide is included with this technical memorandum as Appendix A.




2. Conduct stakeholder interviews with staff associated with the state transportation funding programs. Staff not available during these days was interviewed by phone. A total of 16 individuals were interviewed; a list of individuals and agencies contacted is included as Appendix B.

3. Review, compile and evaluate data collected from interviews and reports and data pertaining to individual programs. Our review and discussion of this information led to development of next steps.

Tech Memo Organization This memo is organized into six chapters immediately following this introductory section, including:

Chapter 2: Overview of Federal Coordination Requirements – Provides an overview of current federal requirements for coordination.

Chapter 3: Federal Funding Sources for Transportation – Describes the key federal funding programs applicable to the provision of community transportation services.

Chapter 4: Overview of Wisconsin Transportation Program – Presents and discusses current federal and state funding used by public transit and human service transportation programs in the State of Wisconsin.

Chapter 5: Assessment of State Agency Funding – Outlines the key strengths and challenges associated with state funded transportation programs.

Chapter 6: Key Findings/Next Steps – Provides key findings from the first research step and describes subsequent tasks and efforts.




Chapter 2. Overview of Federal Coordination Requirements

Historical Perspective Coordination in the planning and provision of general public and human service transportation has been encouraged, if not required, at the federal level since the 1970s. With the initiation of rural public transportation demonstration projects in 1977, known as “Section 147” projects, the federal government recognized the need for public transportation services in rural areas. These projects were the predecessors of the public transportation systems that became operable under the federal Section 18 program in the early 1980s.

In 1986 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) became actively involved in a cooperative effort with the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to further coordination. The Joint DHHS/DOT Coordinating Council on Human Services Transportation was formed to support coordination efforts by providing a forum for addressing issues between the two agencies. The coordination council conducted outreach efforts to transportation providers and human service agencies, identified coordination barriers, disseminated useful coordination-related information, and developed planning and implementation guidelines for use by agencies involved with coordination activities.

The introduction of the Federal Welfare Reform Act of 1996 further reinforced the coordination of transportation services through the funding programs and policy guidance that was issued to transportation providers and human service agencies. Following passage of welfare reform, several DHHS welfare programs were consolidated into a single new block grant to states called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). TANF recognized transportation services as a vital element for a successful transition from public assistance to employment and independence. Transportation was included as an eligible project expense under the TANF programs. Soon thereafter the FTA created the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) Program that required projects to be a result of a coordinated human services-public transportation planning process. FTA and DHHS issued joint guidance describing how TANF and welfare-to-work funds could be used in a collaborative manner to provide public transportation, particularly commuter related services.

In 2003, the U.S. DOT, DHHS, Department of Labor, and Department of Education introduced United We Ride, a new human service transportation coordination initiative. United We Ride is by far the most significant effort to date to address the coordination of human service transportation. It is designed to make transportation coordination easier and more rewarding for states and communities.




The introduction of the United We Ride initiative was followed in February 2004 by President Bush issuing an Executive Order on Human Services Transportation Coordination. The Executive Order established the Interagency Transportation Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility which is composed of representatives from ten federal departments. It reasserts the federal government’s commitment to improving the mobility for older adults, people with disabilities and lower income individuals. The Executive Order calls for the Council to identify laws, regulations, and procedures that serve as barriers as well as facilitators for coordination, recommend changes to streamline federal program requirements, and provide individual department assessments of efforts to reduce duplication and provide the most cost-effective service within existing resources.

SAFETEA-LU On August 10, 2005, President Bush signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), providing $286.4 billion in guaranteed funding for federal surface transportation programs over five years through FY 2009. The legislation included $52.6 billion for federal transit programs, representing a 46 percent increase over guaranteed transit funding levels in the previous transit authorizing legislation (TEA-21). SAFETEA-LU, in addition to substantially increasing overall funding for transit, makes several notable changes to existing programs and establishes several new programs of interest to transit-disadvantaged consumers. SAFETEA-LU:

Transitions the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program to a permanent formula program;

Creates the New Freedom program to support new public transportation services and public transportation alternatives beyond those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; and

Imposes a coordination planning requirement as a prerequisite to the receipt of certain FTA funds.

Specifically, SAFETEA-LU requires that projects selected for funding under the Section 5310, JARC and New Freedom programs be “derived from a locally developed, coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan” and that the plan be “developed through a process that includes representatives of public, private, and non-profit transportation and human services providers and participation by members of the public.” This is the culmination of over thirty years of efforts to facilitate the coordination of general public and human service transportation.

Federal Council on Coordinated Access and Mobility As noted, Presidential Executive Order 13330 on the Coordination of Human Service Programs issued by the President on February 24, 2004, created an interdepartmental Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility (CCAM). In concert




with this Executive Order, the CCAM in October 2006 issued two policy statements requiring federal agencies that are involved in human service transportation to respectively (1) participate in local coordination planning; and (2) coordinate their resources in order to maximize accessibility and availability of transportation services. These policy statements are presented and discussed below.

Local Coordination Planning Consistent with the Executive Order and the SAFETEA-LU statutes requiring a locally-developed, coordinated public transit-human service transportation planning process, the CCAM recently adopted the following policy statements:

“Member agencies of the Federal Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility resolve that federally-assisted grantees that have significant involvement in providing resources and engage in transportation delivery should participate in a local coordinated human services transportation planning process and develop plans to achieve the objectives to reduce duplication, increase service efficiency and expand access for the transportation-disadvantaged populations as stated in Executive Order 13330. Significant involvement is defined as providing, contracting for and/or subsidizing individual transportation trips for individuals with disabilities, older adults, or people with lower incomes.”

“Members of the Federal Council on Access and Mobility will undertake actions within six months of Council adoption to accomplish Federal program grantee participation in locally-developed, coordinated public transit-human service coordinated planning processes.”

The significance of this statement is profound in that, for the first time, Federal agencies other than the Federal Transit Administration that fund community transportation services are required to participate in local coordination planning efforts. The six-month point ended on March 31, 2007.

Vehicle Sharing The CCAM also stated that:

“Some grantees do not permit vehicles and rides to be shared with other federally-assisted program clients or other members of the riding public. Federal grantees may attribute such restrictions to Federal requirements. This view is a misconception of Federal intent. In too many communities, this misconception results in fragmented or unavailable transportation services and unused or underutilized vehicles. Instead, federally assisted community transportation services should be seamless, comprehensive, and accessible to those who rely on them for their lives, needs, and livelihoods.”




In recognition of this misconception, and consistent with Executive Order 13330, the CCAM further adopted the following policy statement:

“Member agencies of the Federal Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility resolve that Federally-assisted grantees that have significant involvement in providing resources and engage in transportation should coordinate their resources in order to maximize accessibility and availability of transportation services”

In conjunction with this statement, the CCAM provided several examples of how this requirement may be implemented:

Several local human service agencies may contract with a local organization that operates a van service to provide door-to-door service for their clientele. Key destinations include hospitals and other medical facilities, child care centers, senior citizen centers, selected employment sites, and prisons for family visitation purposes.

In an area with high unemployment and no public transportation services, a community action and economic development agency, another nonprofit organization, and a community mental health center team up with the State’s TANF agency and Labor Department to start a fixed route shuttle operation service that connects individuals to job and training sites, outpatient mental health services, and substance abuse treatment and counseling services in the area. The operation also provides a feeder service to connect clientele to public transportation that goes into the downtown area. Each funding source pays its fair share of allowable ongoing costs in accordance with the benefit received by each party.

State agencies that oversee TANF, Community Health Care, and Older Adult Services partner with the State Departments of Transportation and Labor to encourage employers in the area to contribute to the expansion of a local transportation system. The privately-operated system provides shuttle service to selected employment sites and curb-to-curb services to senior citizen centers, retail centers, community health centers or substance abuse treatment and counseling centers, hospitals and other locations. The service is sustained through a fare-based system, with each agency subsidizing an allocable portion of the fares for their clientele.

Via a cost-sharing arrangement, a senior shuttle service is expanded to provide transportation for persons with disabilities working in community rehabilitation programs and to provide Medicaid non-emergency medical transportation.

A for-profit organization receiving Head Start funds purchases specially equipped buses to transport children to and from their Head Start facility. During the idle periods, the organization rents the vehicles to another program providing transportation for seniors and persons with disabilities.




Chapter 3. Federal Funding Sources for Transportation

Introduction This chapter provides an overview of the federal programs used to fund community transportation services. National discussions about coordination frequently reference on the order of 70 federal programs available to fund transportation programs and services. This list includes a wide variety of programs, including loans and grants that have been or could be used for transportation. A listing of these wider federal programs is included as Appendix C.

Our review of these programs suggests that of these 70 federal programs, about 20 of these are most relevant to funding community transportation services. This shorter list is included as Figure 3-1. The following text provides an overview of the individual programs as well as some information about the use of the funds. More information on how the State of Wisconsin uses these funds is provided in Chapter 4 together with information on state programs.

The most significant sources of federal funding which can be used to support community transportation services are located within the Departments of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Education (DOE), Labor (DOL), DOT, and Housing and Urban Development (HUD). These funding programs may be used to purchase transportation from existing public or private sources through the purchase, reimbursement and/or subsidy of fares, mileage reimbursement or by contracting for service from private providers; and directly operate transportation services, either for the general public or for clients.




Figure 3-1 Key Federal Programs with Transportation Components

Office/Administration Programs with Major Transportation Components Primary Transportation Services Funded Department of Health and Human Services Medicaid Medicaid Transit tokens and passes; brokerage services Administration on Aging Grants for Supportive Services (Title III-B) Contract for Services Administration for Children and Families

Community Service Block Grants

Social Services Block Grants

Head Start

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Refugee and Entrant Assistance

Taxi Vouchers, transit tokens/passes

Any transportation use

Purchase and operate vehicles, contract with transportation providers, coordinate with local education agencies

Any transportation use; also matching portion for JARC

Transit Passes

Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants Vehicle modifications, bus tokens and purchase of vendor services

Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration

Workforce Investment Act

National Farmworker Jobs Program

Senior Community Service Employment Program

Trade Adjustment Assistance

Transportation Support

Mileage reimbursement

Reimburse mileage, transportation costs

Reimburse mileage, bus fares

Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration

Large Urban Cities Formula Program (Section 5307)

Rural and Small Urban Area Formula Program (Section 5311)

Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities (Section 5310

Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants (Section 5316)

New Freedom Program (Section 5317)

Metropolitan and Statewide Transportation Planning Program (Section 5303 and 5304)

Capital and operating assistance

Capital, operating and administrative assistance

Purchasing vehicles, contract for services


New services for individuals with disabilities

Transportation planning

Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Community Planning and Development

Supportive Housing Program

Community Development Block Grant Program

Transportation support





Department of Health and Human Services

Medicaid Title XIX of the Social Security Act of 1965 established the Medicaid program as a joint effort on the part of the federal and state governments to ensure health care services for individuals and families who meet certain income and resource requirements, or who belong to other needy groups. Medicaid issues program guidelines and requirements, but each state is responsible for the design of its own Medicaid program, including such components as eligibility standards; the type, amount, duration and scope of services to be provided; rates of payment for services; and administrative procedures.

Funds are allocated to states on a formula basis, following approval of a Medicaid State Plan by DHHS, and are distributed to a designated state Medicaid agency. In Wisconsin, this agency is the Division of Health Care Financing in the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS). The federal allocation formula considers such factors as the state's medical assistance expenditures, and a three-year average of per capita income. States receive funds from the federal government quarterly, according to their estimates of the amounts needed to provide the medical services required by Medicaid recipients.

The federal share of the cost of medical services (including transportation necessary to ensure access to those services) may range from 50% to 83%. States provide the remainder of costs associated with the Medicaid program.

Administration on Aging The Administration on Aging (AoA) is responsible for the administration of a number of programs authorized by the Older Americans Act. These programs support a variety of services for seniors, especially those who are frail or vulnerable, including home-delivered and congregate meals, preventive health care, in-home services, senior centers, transportation, ombudsman services, insurance and benefits counseling, and community service employment. AoA also funds research, training and demonstration projects.

Grants for Supportive Services (Title IIl-B) Title III of the Older Americans Act of 1965 as amended, authorizes State and Community Programs, and supports programs and services which are intended to aid active seniors and those who are at risk of losing their independence. Types of programs and services which are funded under different parts of Title III include Supportive Services (Part B), Nutrition Services (Part C), and Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Services (Part D).

Title III funds are awarded to states on a formula basis, according to the state's senior population (persons aged 60 years and older). Approval of a State Plan by the appropriate Administration on Aging is a requirement for the receipt of funds. From the federal AoA, funds are distributed to each state's Agency on Aging via the state Office on Aging. Wisconsin has six Area Agencies on Aging (AAA); four are multi-county organizations and




two (Dane and Milwaukee) are single county agencies. In Wisconsin, the AAAs oversee Title III funds, but local county/tribal aging units retain responsibility for providing services and spending decisions.

Individuals aged 60 and older are eligible for services provided with Title III funds, with priority given to individuals with the greatest economic and/or social needs; low-income minority seniors, in particular, are targeted. Under the current law, fees may not be charged for services, but seniors must be given the opportunity to make voluntary contributions toward the cost of the services they receive. Such contributions must be used to expand services.

Title III-B covers supportive services in several categories: access services, one of which is transportation; in-home services, including housekeeping and health care assistance and services designed to provide relief to family caregivers; and community services, such as legal assistance, adult day care, and recreational activities. Transportation is often delivered by non-profit or for-profit service providers. Title III-B funds also require a minimum of a 10% local match. According to the Older Americans Act, services funded under Title III-B, C, D, E, and F shall be funded with a non-Federal match.

Administration for Children and Families This office is responsible for administering a variety of federal programs aimed at promoting and strengthening the economic independence of families and communities, including Native Americans, and providing protective and support services for children in need and individuals with developmental disabilities.

Community Services Block Grants Community Services Block Grants (CSBG) are formula-based grants administered by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) - Office of Community Services. Each state's allotment is determined based on the formula set forth in the Community Services Block Grant Act.

The CSBG program is designed to ameliorate the causes of poverty by giving states flexibility to tailor their programs to the particular needs of their communities. Specifically, program funds are used to:

Provide services and activities having an impact on the causes of poverty.

Provide activities designed to assist low-income participants to:

Secure and retain meaningful employment

Attain an adequate education

Make better use of available income

Obtain and maintain adequate housing and a suitable living environment

Obtain emergency assistance

Remove obstacles which block the achievement of self-sufficiency




Achieve greater participation in the affairs of the community

Make more effective use of other related programs

Make more effective use of other related programs

Provide on an emergency basis for the provision of such supplies and services to counteract conditions of starvation and malnutrition among the poor.

Establish linkages between governmental and other social services programs to assure the effective delivery of services

Encourage the use of private sector entities in efforts to ameliorate poverty in the community

To receive funds, states must prepare a report on the proposed use of the funds, including a statement of goals and objectives, information on the types of activities and characteristics of individuals to be supported and the description of the methods of distributing the funds.

Social Services Block Grants Social Services Block Grants (SSBG) are formula-based grants administered by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Original authorization for the program is found in Title XX of the Social Security Act.

The objective of the SSBG is to enable each state to provide social services to its residents. States can use SSBG funds to:

Prevent, reduce or eliminate dependency

Achieve or maintain self sufficiency

Prevent neglect, abuse or exploitation of children and adults

Prevent or reduce inappropriate institutional care

Secure admission or referral for institutional care when other forms of care are not appropriate

Services may be provided directly by state agencies or purchased from other providers. Typical services include child day care, home-based household aid personal care, protective services for children and adults, and assistance for individuals with mental, physical or emotional disabilities.

States are allocated funds according to a statutory formula based on population. Each state is then responsible for identifying local social and economic needs, and programming SSBG funds for services that will respond to those needs. States may transfer up to 10% of their annual allocation to other block grant programs. In addition to deciding how to use its SSBG funds, each state is responsible for determining who is eligible to receive SSBG-funded services and establishing guidelines for the distribution of those funds to local organizations. Some states use SSBG funds to provide transportation services.




Head Start Head Start has been funding services for pre-school children (aged three to five years) of low income families since 1965. Head Start programs seek to provide educational and health care services for children and necessary social services for their families and to involve parents and volunteers in planning, operating, and supporting those services. Transportation is often a component of these services, and is provided with Head Start funds and the assistance of volunteers. The program is administered at the federal level by the Head Start Bureau in the Administration on Children, Youth and Families, part of the Administration for Children and Families of DHHS.

Funds are distributed by the ten regional offices of the Administration for Children and Families and the Head Start Bureau's American Indian and Migrant Programs Branches to local public and non-profit agencies for the operation of local Head Start programs. Some funds are spent at the federal level for training and technical assistance activities and the research, demonstration and evaluation of innovative programs and techniques. The required local match for Head Start funds is 20%.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) block grants may be used by states to finance transportation and other support services that will make it easier for welfare recipients to find and maintain employment, or help to achieve other goals of the welfare reform effort. According to guidance jointly issued by the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and transportation,1 examples of allowable uses of TANF funds (both federal dollars and state funds that are used to provide the required non-federal share) for transportation include the following:

Reimbursement or a cash allowance to TANF recipients for work-related transportation expenses

Contracts for shuttles, buses, car pools or other services for TANF recipients

Purchase of vehicles for the provision of service to TANF recipients

Purchase of public or private transit passes or vouchers

Loans to TANF recipients for the purpose of leasing or purchasing a vehicle for work travel

Programs to obtain and repair vehicles for use by TANF recipients

One-time payments to recipients to cover expenses such as auto repair or insurance

Payment of "necessary and reasonable" costs for new or expanded transportation services for use by TANF recipients

Assistance to TANF recipients with the start-up of a transportation service

1 Use of TANF and WTW Funds for Transportation; Dear Colleague letter from the Secretaries of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Transportation dated May 4, 1998.




Transfer of TANF funds to a Social Services Block Grant (this program is described in more detail below) for use in efforts to provide transportation services for disadvantaged residents of rural and inner city areas

Payment of TANF agency expenses associated with the planning of transportation services for TANF individuals.

TANF funds must be used only for programs and activities which further the goals of the TANF program, which would include the provision of transportation service for use by eligible TANF recipients for work and work-related activities. TANF funds, however, may not be used to subsidize the use of such transportation services by non-TANF individuals. TANF funds also may not replace other federal funds which normally would be used to provide those services. If funds from another federal agency, such as the Department of Transportation's Federal Transit Administration, are currently used to provide transportation services which will be used by TANF recipients, TANF funds may not be substituted for those other funds.

Another caveat concerning the use of TANF funds for transportation services is that, according to the definition of "assistance" in the proposed TANF regulations, a transit pass constitutes assistance, and counts toward the lifetime limit of 60 months (states may set shorter limits, or provide assistance for a longer period using state funds) that a family is entitled to receive TANF benefits.

Refugee and Entrant Assistance2 The Refugee and Entrant Assistance program provides funding for employment related and other social services for refugees, asylees, Amerasians, victims of trafficking and immigrants (with documentation from the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services)

Within each state, the agency who oversees the Refugee Resettlement Program is eligible to receive funding under the Refugee and Entrant Assistance Program to disseminate to counties and areas within the given state where there are unusually large refugee populations and high use of public assistance by refugees. Thus, a need exists for supplemental resources for services to refugees.

Department of Education

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Rehabilitation Services Administration The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) is one of three departments within the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) of the U.S. Department of Education. RSA administers several formula grant programs and a number of discretionary grant programs.

2 http://www.federalgrantswire.com/refugee_and_entrant_assistancetargeted_assistance.html




Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants One relevant formula program is the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants program, authorized by Title I, Parts A and B, of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. These grants fund services that enable individuals with physical or mental disabilities to become and remain employed. Individuals, who have a physical or mental disability that limits their ability to find and maintain employment and require the services of a vocational rehabilitation agency in order to become employed, are eligible for basic vocational rehabilitation services. Priority is given to meeting the needs of individuals with the most severe disabilities.

Funds are distributed to states based on a formula that takes into account population and per capita income. In order to participate in these formula programs, states must submit a state plan for approval and apply for funds through the state vocational rehabilitation agency. The state matching requirement is 21.3%.

Department of Labor

Employment and Training Administration

Workforce Investment Act3

In 2005 the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 was reauthorized. This legislation provides support for both national and local programs directed at supporting workers and employers. At the national level, WIA authorized programs included Job Corps, Native American programs, Migrant and Seasonal Farmworker programs, Youth Opportunity grants, and Veterans’ Workforce Investment programs. At the state and local level, the WIA provides funding for workforce development programs as well as for the establishment of “One-Stop” centers. “One-Stop” centers provide employers and individuals with a centralized site for job training and development, job skills assessment, job search and placement assistance. In Wisconsin, there are 11 Workforce Development Areas (WDAs) and 80 job centers; one job center located in each of the State’s 72 counties and multiple job centers located in the urbanized parts Milwaukee and Dane counties.

National Farmworker Jobs Program The National Farmworker Jobs Program (NFJP) was authorized by Congress in the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to provide job training and employment assistance for migrant and seasonal farm workers. In addition to job training and placement services, the NFJP also provides farm workers and their dependents with supportive services such as nutrition, health, child care, and temporary housing. Services are provided by public agencies and private non-profit organizations that are selected by the Department of Labor through a competitive process.

3 http://www.doleta.gov/usworkforce/wia/plaintext.pdf




Senior Community Service Employment Program The Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP) a work force training program for low-income persons 55 years or older, that was authorized by Congress in Title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965. SCSEP provides subsidized, part-time, community service work based training as well as job placements in non-profit and public facilities, such as day-care centers, senior centers, schools and hospitals. Support services are offered through “One-Stop” centers. This program is funded by the Department of Labor, and administered in Wisconsin by local county/tribal aging units.

Trade Adjustment Assistance4

The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program is targeted at workers who have lost their jobs due to increased imports or shifts in production to foreign countries. The TAA program provides a number of benefits to trade-affected workers to assist them in re-entering the workforce including: employment counseling, job search programs, job development, job search allowances, relocation allowances, job training, income support and health insurance coverage tax credits. Support services are offered through “One-Stop” centers.

Department of Transportation

Federal Transit Administration The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) oversees a number of grant programs which can be used to support the operating and/or capital expenses of public transportation services.5 A description of these grant programs is included here in order to make the list of funding sources complete.

Large Urban Cities Formula Program (Section 5307) FTA’s Large Urban Cities formula program provides Federal funding support for the planning and operation of mass transportation services, and capital investments which includes some American with Disabilities Act complementary paratransit service, in urbanized areas. An urbanized area is an incorporated area with a population of 50,000 or more that is designated as such by the U.S. Census Bureau. Funds are distributed based on legislative formulas based on population, population density and for urban areas with populations of 200,000 or more, vehicle revenue miles.

For each of the different types of public transportation projects financed with Section 5307 funds; the maximum federal share of the net project cost is as follows:

Construction or vehicle acquisition projects: 80%

Projects designed to accommodate bicycles on public transportation services: 90%

4 http://www.doleta.gov/tradeact/benefits.cfm 5 A fourth DOT program, Section 5309, provides discretionary grants for capital projects, usually the purchase of large numbers of vehicles or the construction of facilities. The Section 5309 program is not described here because it is not a potential source of funding for demand-responsive transportation services.




Vehicle equipment needed for compliance with the ADA or the Clean Air Act Amendments: 90%

Operating assistance: 50%

The remainder of the net cost of each project must be supplied from state and/or local funds.

Rural and Small Urban Areas Formula Program (Section 5311) FTA's Rural and Small Urban Areas formula program provides the same sort of assistance as the Section 5307 program provides for urbanized areas, but for areas with a population of less than 50,000. In addition to capital and operating assistance, Section 5311 funds may also be used to cover administrative assistance to state agencies, local public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and operators of public transportation services. A key objective of the Section 5311 program is to promote coordination between the public transportation services financed with its funds, those supported by other federal agencies and those provided by private operators.

FTA allocates funds to an agency designated by the governor of each state annually based on a statutory formula. Fifteen percent of each state's annual apportionment must be set aside for activities which support rural intercity bus transportation; if needs are currently being addressed and/or no applicants request to use the funding, then state’s may certify as such and set aside the remaining funds or use resources for general 5311 funding. The maximum federal share of the administrative or capital costs of a Section 5311 project is 80%; projects designed to increase access to public transportation services for bicycles or to purchase equipment needed for compliance with the ADA or Clean Air Act Amendments may be federally funded at 90%. The maximum federal share of operating expenses or user-side subsidies is 50%. State and local funds, or funds obtained through the purchase of service by human service agencies with other sources of federal funds, may be used to provide the required local match.

Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities (Section 5310) This program provides formula funding to states for capital projects to assist in meeting the transportation needs of the elderly and persons with disabilities. This funding, available to public entities and private, not-for-profit entities involved in transporting seniors and persons with disabilities, has historically been used for the purchase of accessible vehicles used for such services.

The goal of the Section 5310 Program is to improve mobility and independence for the elderly and persons with disabilities. Capital assistance is generally provided on an 80% federal/20% local match requirement.

Job Access and Reverse Commute Program (Section 5316) The Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program provides formula funding for projects that assist eligible low-income individuals with transportation services they may




need to access jobs and other employment-related activities (such as educational opportunities or training that directly contributes to job attainment). JARC, originally a discretionary program, became a formula program under SAFETEA-LU.

New Freedom Program (Section 5317) The New Freedom program provides formula funding for new public transportation services and service alternatives beyond those required by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), assisting individuals with disabilities with transportation to and from employment, among other services.

The New Freedom Program is designed to encourage new public transportation services and service alternatives to address the transportation needs of persons with disabilities that go beyond those required by the ADA, such as providing transportation for persons with disabilities to and from employment. The New Freedom formula grant program aims to provide additional tools for persons with disabilities seeking to overcome existing barriers by integrating into the work force and participating fully in society.

Metropolitan and Statewide Transportation Planning Program (Section 5303 & 5304) The Metropolitan Transportation Planning Program provides formula funding to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and state departments of transportation to support planning processes targeted at making transportation investment decisions, the development of long-range transportation plans, and multimodal improvement programs.

Funding is allotted to states based on a formula which takes into account the size of the state’s urbanized population in proportion to the total urbanized population for the United States, as well as a number of other factors. The state, in turn sub-allocates funding to MPOs based on a formula that considers the MPO’s urbanized area population, their planning needs, and a minimum distribution level.

Both of these programs require a local match to the federal share of the cost of planning and research activities. The federal share for these programs is 80% and the local share is 20%.

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Office of Community Planning and Development

Supportive Housing Program The Supportive Housing Program (SHP) is designed to promote the development of supportive housing and other services to assist homeless persons as they make the transition into a more independent lifestyle.

Assistance is provided to help homeless persons achieve residential stability, increase their skill levels and/or incomes, and obtain greater self- determination. The SHP provides




funding for projects relating to the following categories: transitional housing; permanent housing; safe havens; and supportive or innovative supporting services. Transportation is considered a supportive service, (such as mobile vans for health care), and is an eligible use of SHP funds. Certain supportive services may continue to be provided to homeless persons for up to six months after that person moves into permanent housing.

Recipients eligible to receive SHP funding include (but are not limited to): private-non profit organizations, local governments or government entities; and public non-profit community mental health associations. Funds are awarded competitively to between 1,000 and 1,500 organizations annually. The competition requires communities to plan a housing and delivery service system which addresses the needs of homeless persons so they can make the transition into a job and a more independent living situation.

Community Development Block Grant Program The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, authorized under Title 1 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, provides funding support for a broad range of neighborhood revitalization and economic development activities, and for improving community facilities and services.

Grants are distributed annually, based on a formula that takes into account the factors of population, poverty, housing overcrowding, age of housing, and growth lag. Most of the appropriations are used for the two principal components of the program: the Entitlement Program and the State Program. About 70% of available funding is allocated to certain larger cities and counties known as "metropolitan cities" and "urban counties”. Transportation service is an eligible use of CDBG funds.




Chapter 4. Wisconsin State Transportation Programs

Overview The multitude of federal funds available for community transportation services are primarily administered by four state agencies in Wisconsin: Department of Transportation (WisDOT); Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS); Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA); and Department of Workforce Development (DWD). Each of these departments has representatives on the ICTC. A partial mapping of existing federal programs to State of Wisconsin departments is shown in Figure 4-1.




Figure 4-1 Federal Programs and Wisconsin State and Local Administering Departments

Federal Office/Administration

Programs with Major Transportation Components

Primary Transportation Services Funded

State Administrative

Entity Local Entity (where

appropriate) Department of Health and Human Services Medicaid Medicaid

Medicaid Infrastructure Grants

Transit tokens and passes; brokerage services

Program and policy development

DHFS – Bureau Fee-for-Service-Health Care

DHFS – Office for Independence & Employment

County/tribal Gov’ts

Direct to human service providers; also can be to county/tribal gov’ts

Administration on Aging

Grants for Supportive Services (Title III-B)

Contract for Services DHFS – Office of Aging

County/tribal aging units

Administration for Children and Families

Community Service Block Grants

Social Services Block Grants

Head Start

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Refugee and Entrant Assistance

Taxi Vouchers, transit tokens/passes

Any transportation use

Purchase and operate vehicles, contract with transportation providers, coordinate with local education agencies

Any transportation use; also matching portion for JARC

Transit Passes

DHFS

DHFS

DHFS

DHFS

DHFS

County/tribal gov’ts





Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants

Vehicle modifications, bus tokensand direct service

Support for individual purchasing equipment that supports independent living and quality of life improvements

DWD-DVR

DHFS (WisTech and WisLoan)

Centers for Independent Living

Centers for Independent Living

Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration

Workforce Investment Act National Farmworker Jobs Program Senior Community Service Employment Program

Transportation Support Mileage reimbursement Reimburse mileage, transportation costs

DWD – Wisconson Works DWD DHFS – Office of Aging

Job Centers N/A County/tribal Aging Units




Federal Office/Administration

Programs with Major Transportation Components

Primary Transportation Services Funded

State Administrative

Entity Local Entity (where

appropriate) Trade Adjustment Assistance

Reimburse mileage, bus fares

DWD N/A

Department of Transportation Federal Transit Administration

Large Urban Cities Formula Program (Section 5307)

Rural and Small Urban Area Formula Program (Section 5311)

Capital Assistance Program for Elderly Persons and Persons with Disabilities (Section 5310)

Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants (Section 5316)

New Freedom Program (Section 5317)

Metropolitan and Statewide Transportation Planning Program (Section 5303 and 5304) Supplemental Transportation Rural Assistance Program


Capital, operating and administrative assistance

Purchasing vehicles, contract for services


New services for individuals with disabilities

Transportation planning

Planning, operating and administrative assistance

WisDOT (with State 85.20 program)

WisDOT

WisDOT

Combined WisDOT and DWD (WETAP)

Combined WisDOT and DVR

WisDOT

WisDOT

Transit Operators in areas with population > 50,000 or more

Transit Operators in areas with population of at least 2,500 and not more than 50,000

County/tribal units on Aging and local service providers

Varies

Varies

Metropolitan Transportation Organizations and Regional Planning Commissions Varies

Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Community Planning and Development

Supportive Housing Program

Community Development Block Grant Program



Directly from Federal gov’t

Directly from Federal gov’t

County gov’ts

County gov’ts

Source: Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates

The Department of Public Instruction is also involved in the provision of transportation services, but with an elected Commissioner of Public Instruction the Department is outside




of the Governor’s jurisdiction. The Department of Public Instruction does not currently participate in the ICTC and, therefore, is not included in our analysis.

In 2006, federal and state funding programs in Wisconsin amounted to approximately $252 million in resources for public transit and human service transportation service providers in the State of Wisconsin (See Figure 4-2). Of these funds, Wisconsin DOT administers the largest portion, with some $189 million (approximately 75% of all funds) available in 2006.

Figure 4-2 Overview of Wisconsin Transportation Funding (includes State and Federal programs)

State Agency Programs 2006 Funding (in millions)

WisDOT 5307 5309 5310/s85.22 5311 s85.20 s85.21 s85.24 (TEAM)* STRAP JARC (5316) New Freedom (5317) Sub-total

$43.3 $14.5 $2.6

$11.0 $100.6

$10.4 $0.40 $2.0 $2.3 $1.8

$189.2 DHFS Medicaid

Office of Physical Disabilities Office on Aging Senior Community Service Employment ** Medicaid Infrastructure Grants Sub-total

$60.0 n/a

$1.5 $0.3 $0.1

$61.9 DVA County Transportation Grant

Disabled American Veterans Program Sub-total

$0.1 $0.1 $0.2

DWD Division of Vocational Rehabilitation*** Employment Training Assistance (ETA)* Other DWD transportation programs Sub-total

$0.43 $0.55

n/a $.98

TOTAL (all available information) $252.3 Source: Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Notes: Includes available information as of July 23, 2007. *Administered as part of the Wisconsin Employment Transportation Assistance Program (WETAP) program; ** SCSEP is funded statewide with $2.5 million; assume maximum spent on transportation and support services is 10%; ** Administered as part of New Freedom Program The following text outlines the administration of state and federal transportation resources in the State of Wisconsin. Detailed information on individual programs, including statistics and coordination requirements are provided in Figures 4-3 though 4-5 shown at the end of this chapter.




Public and Specialized Transportation Programs The Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) supports all forms of transportation, including aviation, highways, ports and harbors and public transportation. Planning and administration of public transportation programs, including specialized transit is conducted by the Bureau of Transit, Local Roads and Harbors, in the Division of Transportation Investment Management.

WisDOT organizes public transportation into two categories: public and specialized transit. Public transit refers to public transportation services, operated by public bodies and available to all members of the general public. Public transit includes urban systems operating in Milwaukee and Madison as well as small urban areas with populations of at least 2,500. Specialized transit refers to transportation services largely funded with public money, operated by public bodies or private non-profit organizations available to special populations, in this case defined as persons with disabilities and older adults. In terms of resources, of the $183 million available in 2006 to fund public transportation, approximately 89% was allocated to public transit services (with Milwaukee and Madison receiving about 65% of all public transit funding) and 11% to specialized transportation services.

In the 2006 calendar year, there were 68 public transit agencies operating in the State of Wisconsin. Wisconsin classifies and funds public transit agencies according to four tiers based on population: Tier A1, A2, B and C. There are two transit agencies classified as Tier A: A1 – Milwaukee County Transit System; and A2 – Madison Metro Transit System. Tier B includes systems operating in urbanized areas with populations between 50,000 and 200,000 including three county systems; in 2006, WisDOT funded 23 Tier B systems. Tier C systems operate in small urban areas that have populations of at least 2,500 and not more than 50,000 persons. There were 43 Tier C systems funded by WisDOT in 2006; six bus systems and 37 shared-ride taxi programs.

WisDOT currently administers several funding programs that provide operating and capital funding programs for the state’s public transportation programs. Of these programs, there are ten funding programs (seven federal and three state) that are used primarily to fund the planning or operations of public transportation services.

Federal Formula Grant Program for Urbanized Areas (Section 5307) The federal funding grant program for urbanized areas (Section 5307) is used to fund capital, administrative and operation costs for transit systems operating in federally defined urbanized areas with populations of 50,000 or more.

In Wisconsin, 5307 funds are used to fund the 21 (in 2006) systems classified as Tier A1, A2 and B. In 2006, Wisconsin received approximately $43 million Section 5307 funds




and distributed these funds among 25 operators; these funds provided about 13% of operating costs for Tier A1 and A2 systems and 28% of Tier B systems.

There are no specific coordination requirements associated with Section 5307 funds to coordinate with human service transportation. The FTA does expect, however, that public transit systems will participate in the local planning process. Accordingly, Section 5307 projects must also engage in “the maximum feasible coordination” with other public transportation services funded by other federal sources.

Reporting requirements associated with Section 5307 funds are comprised of operating statistics required for the State to track performance standards of individual systems and meet data requirements for the National Transportation Database (NTD). Among the key statistics collected are:

Operating cost per hour;

Cost per passenger,

Passengers per revenue hour or service;

Passengers per capita; and

Revenue hours of service per capita.

Rural and Small Urban Area Public Transportation Assistance Program (Section 5311) Similar to Section 5307, the federal government provides operating, capital and administrative resources for rural and small urban public transportation systems; this program is known as Section 5311. Wisconsin uses Section 5311 resources to fund operating, capital or administrative costs associated with Tier C bus and shared taxi systems, i.e., public transportation systems operating in small urban areas with a population of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000. In 2006, there were 49 public transportation systems funded with $11.3 million in Section 5311 funds; these funds provided approximately 33% of operating costs for these systems.

Coordination requirements associated with Section 5311 are consistent with those associated with Section 5307; no specific human service coordination requirements but general requirements to participate in the local planning process. The federal government requires quarterly reporting from 5311 recipients similar to the requirements associated with Section 5307. As per SAFETEA-LU requirements, this information needs to be entered into the NTD.

State Urban Mass Transit Operating Assistance Program (s85.20) Wisconsin supplements federal funding programs with a state program created to assist urban transit systems. Eligible project costs are limited to the operating expenses of an urban mass transit system and/or any local public body in an urban area served by an




urban mass transit system. According to the s85.20 program, an urban area is defined as any jurisdiction with a population of at least 2,500 persons.

Distribution of s85.20 funds follows the population tiers used for the Section 5307 and 5311 programs. In 2006, the state provided $100 million for public transit systems; about $73 million of which went to Tier A systems and provided 40% of operating costs; $22 million was used by Tier B for an average operating cost subsidy of 32%; and $5 million was allocated to Tier C systems for an average operating subsidy of 32%.

Coordination and reporting requirements associated with the State Urban Mass Transit Operating Assistance Program are the same as those required by Section 5311 and Section 5307 programs. These programs, however, do not specifically require coordination with human service transportation programs.

Federal Discretionary Capital Assistance Program (Section 5309) Federally funded discretionary capital grant programs (Section 5309) primarily award grant funds through congressional earmarks. States, local public bodies or federal recognized Indian tribal governing bodies may apply for funds. Grants provide 80% of the cost of project equipment. Public transit systems in Wisconsin primarily use the Section 5309 to fund fleet replacement programs, develop intermodal transit facilities and build maintenance facilities. In 2006, Wisconsin received $14.5 million in 5309 funds.

There is no coordination requirement associated with Section 5309 funds. On-going reporting reflects grant applications and project details.

Specialized Transportation Assistance Program for Counties (s85.21) The Specialized Transportation Assistance Program for Counties (s85.21) is funded through the Wisconsin State legislature. The program provides funding for specialized transportation services directed for the state’s elderly and disabled population. This is one of three programs (plus federal 5310 and state 85.22) administered by WisDOT that is not specifically designated for general public transit systems. All funds are distributed directly to the counties and projects must be matched with 20% in local resources.

Allocations for s85.21 funds are set by formula based on the proportion of the state’s elderly and disabled population located in each county (subject to minimums). Funds are transmitted directly to counties, who are responsible for administering the program. The program may be used for a variety of transportation-related activities, including providing direct service, purchasing service, reimbursing passengers, coordinating services or establishing a trust fund (trust funds can be used for all permissible program expenditures). Counties may charge user fees (fares or donations). S85.21 funds may also be used to match federal funds. In 2006, the State funded this program with $10.4 million.




Counties are required to meet annually to review and approve use of the 85.21 resources. In addition, counties are required to file reports with WisDOT on a semi-annual basis, reporting the number of people served, miles of service and the number of rides provided.

Elderly and Disabled Transportation Capital Assistance Program (Section 5310 and s85.22) Wisconsin combines federal (5310) and state (s85.22) funds to provide capital funding for specialized vehicles used to serve elderly persons and persons with disabilities. Eligible applicants include private non-profit organizations, local public bodies where a private non-profit organization is not readily available or where local public bodies are approved as the coordinator of elderly and disabled transportation services.

Grants are available for up to 80% of the cost of equipment and are awarded accordingly to a competitive biennial grant cycle. There were 48 applications funded with approximately $5.6 million during the two-year period between 2006 and 2007. In 2006, federal funds accounted for $1.7 million and state funds provided $921,900 for an annual program of $2.6 million.

Prior to SAFETEA-LU, Section 5310 required grant recipients to coordinate funds and this was primarily demonstrated through a written agreement with other local human service organizations. As of SAFETEA-LU, projects seeking funds under the Federal 5310 program must be listed in a locally-developed coordinated public transit-human service transportation plan. In addition, there are semi-annual reporting requirements associated with the Section 5310 program. Grant recipients must report the number of passenger trips, the type of passenger trips and whether or not passengers are agency clients.

Supplemental Transportation Rural Assistance Program (STRAP) STRAP is a demonstration project earmarked for four years under SAFETEA-LU to assess if a local share reduction will generate more public transit service, innovation and coordination in non-urbanized areas of the State. This federal program is designed to fund projects where rural populations are served, coordination exists between transportation services, the needs of non-ambulatory customers are addressed, and planning processes encourage public participation in the communities served. Wisconsin awards funds annually based on demonstrated need and benefits, project planning, coordination with other services and programs and financial and operating capacity.

STRAP is significant because it funds operating projects at 80% of deficit and local match can be “soft” (i.e., in-kind goods and services) and can include any other funds, including federal funds, as long as they are not USDOT programs. Grants are awarded annually. WisDOT received $1.9 million of STRAP funds in FFY 2006 and is authorized to receive nearly $2 million of these funds in FFY 2007, 2008 and 2009. Of the $1.9 million authorized in FFY 2006, WisDOT awarded $1.165 million, funding five service projects and 11 planning projects. Among the service projects, three went to county governments and two to tribes.




Demonstrating how STRAP-funded projects are coordinated with existing services is required in the grant application. The grant application also gives priority to projects identified in county public transit-human services coordination plans, but this is not required. The federal reporting requirements are associated with the program depending on how the grant was used.

Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC) (Section 5316) JARC funds provide transportation resources for programs aimed at welfare recipients and low-income workers. WisDOT administers JARC funding jointly with the Department of Workforce Development through the Wisconsin Employment Transportation Assistance Program. This program is aimed at developing new or expanded transportation services for low-income individuals and persons with disabilities traveling to/from work and other employment-related services. JARC funds can also be used to create and support reverse commute programs that connect urban residents with suburban job markets.

Federal resources available through JARC funds are managed through the WETAP program, and are awarded annually through a competitive grant process. In 2006, there was approximately $2.3 million available in the JARC program.

Coordination is required for JARC-funded services or programs; any projects funded by JARC must be listed in a locally-developed coordinated public transit-human service transportation plan. Funded projects require quarterly progress reports that must include ridership and operational data.

New Freedom (Section 5317) New Freedom funds were created under SAFETEA-LU to support new public transportation services and public transportation alternatives beyond those required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. Large urban areas (Milwaukee and Madison in Wisconsin) receive New Freedom funds directly from the FTA. Non-urbanized and small-urbanized areas with populations of 50,000-200,000 are eligible to receive funds through a competitive selection process managed by WisDOT.

WisDOT is administering its 5317 program together with DWD’s Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) that will provide 80% of operating deficit for projects that meet certain criteria. The supplement of DVR funds is equal to $425,000; availability of the joint resources is currently available for projects funded for 2008 only. In FFY 2006, New Freedom funds for urbanized areas represent approximately $1 million; for small urbanized and non-urbanized areas in Wisconsin there are $480,230 and $323,192 in funding, respectively.

Projects seeking funds under the Federal 5317 program must have projects listed in a locally-developed coordinated public transit-human service transportation plan. Funded projects require quarterly progress reports that must include ridership and operational data.




Transportation Employment and Mobility (TEAM) (s85.24) Wisconsin funds a state program, Transportation Employment and Mobility (TEAM), designed to support low income individuals traveling to/from work and other employment- related services. As of 2006, TEAM resources are managed as part of the WETAP program.

State resources available through TEAM and managed through the WETAP program, are awarded annually through a competitive grant process. In 2006, there was approximately $400,000 available in TEAM funds contributed to the WETAP program.

Human Service Transportation Programs Among the human service transportation programs, there are a number of programs for which client transportation is an eligible line item. Human service programs provide a large portion of the financial foundation for coordinated transportation systems. These programs serve as a primary source of operating funds through contractual relationships with the coordinated system’s lead provider. An overview of the transportation programs available through human service funding programs, organized by state agency, is provided in the following section.

Unlike the transportation services funded and managed by WisDOT, human service transportation programs are administered by several State agencies, including the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS), the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) and the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (DVA). Accordingly, the programs are typically more oriented to a specific clientele or for a specific trip purpose as compared with the type of service, e.g., rural or urban.

In general, however, most transportation services funded through human service programs are used to primarily provide transportation to medical appointments, employment and job-related activities and specific programs associated with an agency mission (i.e., adult day, rehabilitation, etc.). Fewer services, therefore, are available for quality of life trips for errands, social purposes or other personal business. Within these categories of trips, there are two statewide systems used to disseminate information and resources to eligible clientele:

Aging and Disability Resource Centers (ADRCs) funded by DHFS. While still a demonstration program, ADRC’s are designed to be a single entry point for older adults and persons with disabilities to get information about available resources, including transportation. ADRCs started as demonstration projects in seven counties (Fond du Lac, Kenosha, La Crosse, Milwaukee, Portage, Racine and Richland); many more sites have been added or are planned. Several transportation programs and services are coordinated through these centers.

Job Centers funded by DWD. Wisconsin has a system of 70 job centers, including one in each county and several in Milwaukee and Dane Counties. The job centers are intended to be resource centers for any Wisconsin resident needing services to




help retain, find or transition to employment. Individuals seeking help with employment may also find out about transportation services at the job centers.

While these centers both currently function as an information clearinghouse, they have potential to play a larger role in coordination efforts.

Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) After WisDOT, the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) is the second largest provider of community transportation funding. The majority of all these funds, including both federal and state funds are coordinated and dispensed through local county governments.

Medicaid Medicaid is by far the largest resource for human service transportation in Wisconsin with approximately $60 million in combined state and federal funds expended annually for Medicaid transportation statewide. There are no local matching requirements associated with Medicaid funding. There are three primary types of Medicaid transportation:

Ambulance – The Medicaid program pays for emergency transportation by ambulance when a client is very sick or hurt. Expenditures for ambulance transportation ranges from $8-10 million annually.

Common carrier or private motor vehicle – Medicaid pays transportation costs for clients traveling to/from medical treatments and appointments, a service known as Non-Emergency Medical Transportation (NEMT). Transportation costs may also include transportation-related expenses such as hotels or meals if an overnight stay is required. To receive transportation, clients work directly with their local county or tribal social or human services agency; local agencies arrange for transportation services. By law, they are required to select the least expensive means of transportation. Local administering agencies may also choose to pay transportation costs only to the closest medical provider who can provide the needed service.

The common carrier transportation program is administered through counties as an administrative cost as part of an income maintenance contract with the state. The state provides reimbursement to the county for the cost of the trip plus administrative costs on a lump-sum basis. Reports are not required for trip verification due to the program being subject to an income maintenance audit. Generally transportation costs are divided equally between federal and state funds. Medicaid spends approximately $25 million annually for common carrier transportation expenses; funding is provided equally between federal and state funds.

Specialized medical vehicle – Specialized medical vehicle (SMV) refers to transportation services needed for clients with disabilities, such that the client requires a wheelchair, stretcher or has other special transportation needs. To receive SMV transportation, a client’s physician must provide documentation stating why SMV transportation is needed. SMV transportation is available only for trips to




and from a Medicaid-covered medical service. There are about 170 SMV providers throughout Wisconsin. Services are funded with 40% federal and 60% state funds. SMV costs amount to some $21 million annually. Federal funds pay 60% of these costs and the State pays the remaining 40%.

Of these three programs, both NEMT and SMV are relevant to coordination efforts.

In Wisconsin, counties retain significant control over the provision and funding of Medicaid transportation because counties have administrative responsibility for common carrier transportation as part of their income maintenance contracts. This responsibility gives them flexibility to design their services to meet the needs of their local Medicaid recipients. County governments, however, have no responsibility for SMV or ambulance transportation, which are provided by private providers who are certified as authorized Medicaid carriers by Wisconsin Medicaid.

Concerns over both capacity and costs recently led the Medicaid office to examine creating a brokerage or transportation management system for Medicaid transportation. The plan was to establish five regions statewide with one broker per region. In a situation where a county had no SMV provider, the regional broker could also provide the service. The Medicaid office was also hopeful that other Wisconsin state programs would piggy-back on the brokerage idea. As the idea was carried forward, however, it was met with resistance from private providers and county governments. As a result, in June 2006 the Governor’s Office decided not to pursue this plan.

There is currently no statewide policy to encourage coordination of Medicaid transportation with local transit systems or other community transportation providers. Indeed, antidotal evidence suggests that county Medicaid offices have hesitated to use local transit systems. Reasons cited for not using public transportation include unavailability of vehicles and concern over profitability of small, private sector Medicaid providers. In addition, there are few reporting requirements associated with the common carrier transportation services. Reports are submitted annually by the counties and DHFS is starting to create a database to track services and expenditures more closely.

Office of Independence and Employment The DHFS Office of Independence and Employment administrators a Medicaid Infrastructure Grant (MIG) with the purpose of increasing collaboration among existing programs and policies to create a stronger, consumer-center safety net in support of an individual’s employment goals.

MIG sponsors projects associated with supporting people with disabilities getting to work. MIG is not in the business of providing direct services, but rather looks for ways tosupport and improve the existing system. MIG recognizes transportation as a key need and has sponsored transportation programs the past three years. MIG just supported the hiring of regional coordinators, who will continue to work on transportation issues.




MIG has been working on transportation coordination with the North Country Independent Living Center (NCIL) in the northwest corner of the sate developing a voucher program. This program was funded with approximately $100,000 per year for three years. The money was made available for program design and development and now that NCIL is ready to deliver the service, they must find alternative funding sources.

WisTech and WisLoan (Pathways to Independence) DHFS manages and oversees assistive technology programs, WisTech and WisLoan. These programs provide individuals with disabilities the opportunity to learn about, use and purchase technology that supports independent living. WisTech provides technical assistance, training and demonstration programs for individuals to learn and test available assistive technology. WisLoan provides financing options which support Wisconsin residents in purchasing assistive technology devices. Both WisTech and WisLoan are intended to support independent living and are administered through the Wisconsin Independent Living Centers.

WisTech and WisLoan are funded by the U.S. Department of Education Rehabilitation Services Administration, state Medicaid programs and another DHFS program Pathways to Independence. The program covers a range of programs, including assistive technologies that enable individuals to modify vehicles, purchase special vehicles and obtain technology to transport themselves independently. The portion of the Pathways program that can be directly attributable to transportation is not easily identified and there are no reporting requirements that specifically call out transportation related expense. The contribution of these programs to transportation funding, therefore, is not easily determined.

Office on Aging The DHFS Office on Aging has been, and continues to be, active with transportation issues primarily through administration of Older American Act Title III-B funds. Title III-B appropriations are based on each state’s percentage of the country’s total 60 and over population. The amount of funds from a state’s Title III-B appropriation that may be used for supportive services, which includes transportation, is determined annually by Congress. Federal requirements mean local Area Agencies on Aging (AAA) oversee the use of Title III-B funds. In Wisconsin, the State allocates Title III-B funds to local county/tribal aging units through a formula; local aging units then determine how to use their supportive services funding. Title III-B funds have been flat for a number of years but many counties augment Title III-B funds with local resources. In 2006, of the approximately $20 million awarded to the State of Wisconsin, about 10% or $2 million of available Title III-B funds were used for client transportation.

In addition to the Title III-B funds, another important transportation program for older adults is funding for specialized transportation provided by the 85.21 program, which is administered by WisDOT. A key difference between 85.21 and Title III-B funds is that services funded with 85.21 funds can charge a fee while services provided with Title III-B




funds may request a donation only. 85.21 funds can be used as non-federal matching resources for Title III-B funds.

The county aging offices rely heavily on volunteers to transport their clients. It is estimated nearly one-half of aging offices utilize volunteers for transportation, especially for longer distance medical transportation. Although County offices may use Title III-B funds to purchase vehicles, many of these agencies utilize FTA Section 5310 funds for capital purchases. 85.21 funds can be used as local match for the Section 5310 grant or used as operating assistance. The rural, less densely populated areas of the State, are more likely to operate their own fleet of vehicles or utilize volunteers. In the more populous urban areas, county aging offices often contract with a private transportation operator or a private non-profit operator/agency to provide their transportation services.

Coordination is an important issue for many counties in Wisconsin. In some areas, the county aging office is the only transportation provider. The availability of volunteer drivers is challenged due to IRS tax regulations, insurance concerns, and limited resources in other human service departments, such as veteran benefits, medical assistance and job training programs. Coordination is an essential strategy in these counties because volunteers are not available to meet all needs and individual programs can not continue to operate their own transportation systems.

Senior Community Service Employment Program/Wisconsin Senior Employment Program (WISE) As described in Chapter 3, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration has a Senior Community Service Employment Program (SCSEP). In Wisconsin this program is called, Wisconsin Senior Employment Program (WISE) and is administered by DHFS. Upon enrolling, participants receive an assessment to determine individual needs for training, supportive services, and potential for employment. Supportive services may include transportation. There are no transportation coordination requirements associated with this program and reporting focuses on number of individuals served, demographics and placement in the workforce.

Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) The Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs (WDVA) provides financial assistance to counties to provide transportation to Veterans Affairs (VA) medical appointments. This includes appointments arranged or conducted by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The County Transportation Grant (CTG) program consists of $100,000 to be distributed among eligible counties. Grant funds are intended to be a partial reimbursement of county expenses. Some counties provide this service free of charge and others require a small fee or donation. Veterans can request to have this fee waived if they are experiencing financial hardship.

The WDVA financial assistance may be used for capital and operating expenses. Approximately 50% of the eligible counties apply for the funds. Eligible counties are those




that do not have regularly scheduled service from Disabled American Veterans (DAV) transportation services (see next section).

There are no specific coordination requirements associated with these WDVA programs. Reporting requirements include annual reporting, stating revenues and expenditures, as well as the number of trips and miles of service provided.

Disabled American Veterans (DAV) Another transportation program funded by DVA is operated by the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) of Wisconsin, a non-profit organization that supports disabled veterans building better lives. DAV operates several vans around the state that stop at predetermined locations and transport the veterans to various medical centers across the state. Veterans can schedule a stop by contacting their local DAV Transportation Coordinator. These rides are free of charge and available to all veterans based on financial need but a veteran does not have to be disabled or belong to the DAV to participate. The Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs provides an annual grant of $100,000 to the DAV to assist with this program.

Department of Workforce Development Wisconsin’s Department of Workforce Development (DWD) is the state agency charged with building and strengthening Wisconsin’s workforce. DWD offers a variety of employment programs and services, which are primarily, provided via the states’ 78 job centers.

Wisconsin Works (W-2) Wisconsin Works (W-2) replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) in September, 1997. W-2 is based on work participation and personal responsibility. Each W-2 eligible participant meets with a Financial and Employment Planner (FEP), who helps the individual develop a self-sufficiency plan and determine his or her place on the W-2 employment ladder. Transportation benefits may be included in an individual’s self-sufficiency plan. Although funding is available for transportation through W-2, DWD reports the amount is incidental.

Wisconsin Employment Transportation Assistance Program (WETAP) DWD’s Division of Employment and Training (DET) is working jointly with WisDOT to administer the Wisconsin Employment Transportation Assistance Program (WETAP). This transportation program combines state and federal funding sources into a single program and supports the development of transportation services to link low-income workers with jobs, training centers and childcare facilities. The objectives of WETAP are to:

Provide new or expanded transportation service designed to fill gaps that exist for welfare recipients, other low-income individuals, and persons with disabilities to and from jobs and other employment-related services such as childcare, training and job interviews.




Encourage ridesharing through public transportation expansion, vanpools or carpools; and innovative individual solutions, such as car repair programs, vehicle donation or new/used car lease/loan programs, training, or education.

• Develop transportation solutions based upon a local - collaborative planning process involving local stakeholders such as public transit providers, local units of government, transportation planners, human service agencies, low-income individuals and other interested parties.

State funds are provided through the DWD Employment Transportation Assistance (ETA) Program and WisDOT’s Transportation Employment and Mobility (TEAM) program. Federal funds are available through the FTA Section 5316 Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program. For fiscal year 2006, approximately $5 million in total funding was available through WETAP.

The WETAP program provides funding for demonstration grants to cover the expenses of the early start-up and development stages of potential transportation solutions. WETAP funds do not replace other Federal and State funds used for transportation such as capital and operating assistance programs, Wisconsin Works (W-2) program, Food Stamp Employment and Training (FSET), and Medicaid.

Applications require development of regional job access plans. These plans should identify the need for transportation services and illustrate the alternatives proposed for the program. Plans should be developed through a collaborative process between public transit providers, local units of government, transportation planners, human service agencies, low-income individuals and other interested parties. Any local public organization, public transit agency, tribal organization or non-profit organization may apply for WETAP funding.

WETAP applicants are required to utilize existing resources and coordinate with all existing providers before creating new services. As part of the application process, applicants must demonstrate coordination among local stakeholders through letters of endorsement. Multi-county applications are encouraged as a demonstration of a coordinated, regional effort. Only one WETAP application is accepted per county, which supports interested organizations to work together and establish transportation priorities.

Current WETAP grantees may apply for another cycle of funding, but preference will be given to grantees that have received WETAP funds for less than four years. Those applicants requesting continuation funding must show that partnerships have been sustained throughout the year. Historically there have not been enough applicants to utilize all the available funds, which can be attributed primarily to the lack of local matching funds.

WETAP recipients are required to submit monthly expenditure and quarterlys report that lists all WETAP agency expenditures by contract year, summarized by project and the cost/revenue types.




New Freedom and Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) Supplement Funding for the DVR is provided by the Title IV Workforce Investment Act of 1998 and the Education Department General Administrative Regulations. Transportation is considered a secondary service that would support the primary employment goal, such as job placement or training. As discussed, the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) entered into a memorandum of understanding with WisDOT to jointly fund pilot programs to provide opportunities and increase services to rural populations.

DVR is providing $425,000 in funds to the combined New Freedom/DVR Supplement program. The combined WETAP funds are intended to support new or expanded transportation services that fill gaps for individuals with disabilities and/or low incomes traveling to and from employment and employment related activities. Funds are for transportation services and can be used to reduce New Freedom transportation matching resources from 50% to 20% of program operating deficit. They can not be used for planning or to support coordination activities.

Programs funded with New Freedom resources must be included in a locally-developed public transportation human service coordination plan. WETAP accepts only one application per county and all applications must be signed by the Workforce Development Board and the Regional Planning Commission or Metropolitan Planning Organization, where applicable. On-going reporting requirements for WETAP recipients include trip information, service effectiveness and efficiency and documented improvements in access to jobs and support services.

Coordination and Reporting Requirements As discussed and shown in Figure 4-3, currently there are few coordination requirements associated with transportation program funding. Only three federal DOT programs (Section 5310, JARC and New Freedom) require that funded projects are included in a locally-developed public transportation human service coordination plan. A few other programs, such as STRAP, encourage coordination by giving priority to applications that demonstrate coordination. In addition, by combining transportation funding across agencies as required in the WETAP and New Freedom program, Wisconsin has effectively imbedded coordination requirements into many Federal grant applications.

Reporting requirements are often vary by funding departments. For example, most of the US DOT programs require similar information from operating funds awarded to public transit agencies regardless of which funding source is used. Other Federal agencies, however, have different reporting requirements even when the use of funds is similar, e.g., transportation. In part, this reflects the diversity of transportation services available that range from single vehicles operated by non-profit organizations to large multi-vehicle transit agencies. While understandable, the lack of reporting requirements means there are few consistent performance standards available to measure service efficiency and/or coordination across programs funding human service transportation. This is true for WisDOT and DHFS funded programs.




Figure 4-3 Overview of Federal and State Funded Transportation Programs in Wisconsin

Administering Agency

Funding Program

Eligible Recipient

Appropriate Fund Uses and Local Match Requirement

Distribution Process 2006 Funding Level (1)

5307 (with S85.20)

Transit agencies in federally designated urbanized areas

Capital – 20%* Operating – 50%

Formula based on population, population density and revenue service miles; Transit systems provide list of approved projects with available local matching funds annually

$43.3m

5311 (with S85.20)

Public transit service operating or designed to operate in non-urbanized area (less than 50,000 pop)

Capital – 20%* Operating – 50%

Formula allocation to Wisconsin; Annual grant application process

$5.2m

S85.20 (with 5307 and 5311)

Local public body in an urban area served by an urban mass transit system incurring an operating deficit

Operating expenses of an urban mass transit system Tier A – 50% Tier B – 42% Tier C – 35%

Funds distributed according to population based tiers; state and federal operating assistance covers an equal portion of operating costs for all systems within tier

$100.6m

85.21 Counties Provide direct service, purchase service, reimburse travel, volunteer driver programs, studies, coordination projects; training and capital – 20%

Allocations based on proportion of state’s elderly and disabled population located in each county

$10.4m

5309 States, local public bodies or federally recognized Indian tribes

Capital – 20%* Discretionary capital grants awarded via Congressional earmarks

$14.5m

WisDOT

5310 (with S85.22)

Private non-profit, local public bodies providing transportation to elderly and disabled persons

Capital – 20% (typically for vehicles)

Competitive biennial grant cycle $2.6m

WisDOT STRAP Existing public transit systems operating in rural areas (any local body or federally recognized tribal organization may apply)

Planning/Feasibility Studies Service Expansion New Starts – 20%

Federal demonstration project; Competitive annual grant application process

$1.98m




Administering Agency

Funding Program

Eligible Recipient

Appropriate Fund Uses and Local Match Requirement

Distribution Process 2006 Funding Level (1)

Combined WisDOT/DWD

JARC; TEAM (s85.24) and ETA

Local public bodies, public transit agencies, tribal organizations & non-profit agencies

Job access and reverse commute services – 20%**

JARC: Federal allocation via formula with annual competitive grant process ETA – Federal program requires job access plan; bi-annual application TEAM – State funds distributed via competitive grant process

$3.1m

Combined WisDOT/DVR

New Freedom Local public bodies, public transportation providers, tribal organizations & non-profit agencies

New programs that improve services for persons with disabilities; 20% match**

Formula allocation to Wisconsin; Annual grant application process

$1m urban $.8 m rural

DHFS Medicaid Infrastructure Grants

Any local public body Program design and development (not service delivery)

Application process awarded based on current County priorities

$100,000

DHFS Medicaid Program administered by county; Services provided by certified Medicaid carrier

Non-emergency Medical Transportation (NEMT)

Formula allocation based on population characteristics

Approx. $60 m

DHFS Older Americans Act (Title IIIB)

County/tribal governments Support services for older adults; Requires 15% local match

Federal formula based on population $1.5m for transportation

DHFS SCSEP County/tribal governments Resources can be used for supportive services

Federal formula based on population $300,000

Department of Veterans Affairs

County Transportation Grant

County/tribal governments Van service to travel to medical facilities

Grants to partially reimburse county expenses

$100,000

Source: Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Notes: * - Federal programs have lower local matching requirements (10%) for the portion of capital projects required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or by the Federal Clean Air Act. ** Federal program combined with Wisconsin State funds to lower local match requirement




Figure 4-4 Key Statistics Associated with State Funded Community Transportation Programs in Wisconsin

2006 Administering Agency Funding Program Funding (1) Expenditures Carry Over

Units of Service (1)

Cost per Unit (1)

Fleet and Operating Statistics

5307 $40.3 m* 100% of funds None 59,213,639 $2.38 Available 5309 $14.5 m* 100% of funds None TBD TBD Available

5310/s85.22 $2,662,435 TBD TBD 68 Vehicles $44,008 /vehicle

Available

5311 $11,327,041 $7.5 million* $1.5 million* (2)

13,792,449 $0.785 Available

85.20 $100 m* 98% of funds None (3) TBD TBD Available 85.21 $10,373,000 100% of funds None TBD TBD Available

WisDOT

STRAP $1,980,000 $1,165,000 $330,000 TBD TBD Required; Not Available WisDOT/DWD WETAP $3,147,143 TBD TBD TBD TBD Required; Not Available WisDOT/DVR New Freedom

5317 $2,200,000 (4)

TBD TBD TBD TBD Required; Not Available

DHFS Medicaid Infrastructure Grants

$100 k * N/A N/A N/A N/A Not Required

Medicaid $60 m* 100% of funds None (5)

N/A N/A Not currently required

SCSEP $246 m(6) N/A N/A M/A N/A Not Required Older Americans Act

(Title IIIB) $1,447,075 $1,447,075 $0 468,475 $3.08 Available


County Transportation Grants

$100 k * N/A N/A N/A N/A Only limited data available

Source: Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Notes: * Estimated

(1) Includes (or based on) federal and state funds only (no local match); (2) Includes funds carried over only. A portion of difference between funds and expenditures transferred to 5307 (3) Any remaining funds transferred to general fund (4) Includes urban and small urban/rural New Freedom plus $425,000 from DVR (5) Funded as reimbursable expense (6) Not actual expenditures on transportation. Represents estimated maximum amount available for transportation uses is 10% of program funds. TBD (to be determined) means data is collected. Estimates will be available at later point in study (either through newly collected data or reported invoices) N/A (not applicable) means not available or not collected by program




Figure 4-5 Wisconsin Federal and State Transportation Funding Programs – Coordination Requirements and Efforts

2007-2008 Application Process Administering Agency Funding Program Primary Recipient Due Date Award Date Coordination Requirements

5307 Urban transit systems December March/April General coordination requirements only 5311 Rural and small urban transit systems October Early Winter General coordination requirements only

S85.20 Local public body November Early Winter General coordination requirements only

5309 States, local public bodies, tribes December March/April General coordination requirements only

S85.21 County/tribal aging units Formula based N/A None 5310 (with s85.22) Local public bodies, non-profit

organizations Bi-ennial February Yes – must demonstrate coordination in grant application; with

SAFETEA-LU all projects must be in locally developed plan

WisDOT

STRAP Rural and small urban transit systems; county government; tribal orgs.

September November Yes – coordination rewarded in grant process

Combined WisDOT/DVR

WETAP – (JARC, TEAM, ETA)

Local public bodies, non-profit organizations

September November Yes – JARC projects must demonstrate coordination in grant application; with SAFETEA-LU all projects must be in locally developed plan

Combined DOT/DVR New Freedom 5317 Local public bodies, non-profit organizations

Fall Fall Yes – must demonstrate coordination in grant application; with SAFETEA-LU all projects must be in locally developed plan

Medicaid County governments Contract based Contract based None Medicaid Infrastructure Grants

Local public bodies, non-profit organizations

Ad hoc Ad hoc None

SCSEP County/tribal Aging Units N/A N/A None

DHFS

Office of Physical Disabilities

County governments N/A N/A None

Older Americans Act (Title IIIB)

AAAs and County/tribal aging units Formula Formula None


County Transportation Grants

County governments N/A N/A None

Source: Nelson Nygaard




Chapter 5. Assessment of State Agency Funding Programs

As documented, Wisconsin provides significant state funding to both public transit and human service transportation agencies. As described in Chapter 4, approximately $250 million in federal and state transportation funding is administered through four state agencies. Wisconsin’s current delivery of transportation resources offers both opportunities and challenges as the State sets out to improve and enhance coordination. We use the following Chapter to outline these key assets and challenges; they are also summarized as a strengths, opportunities, weaknesses and threats (SWOT) diagram shown in Figure 5-1.

Assets and Opportunities Existing coordination efforts in Wisconsin benefit from historical support for both public transit and human service transportation. This next section inventories and examines Wisconsin’s key assets and opportunities as the State starts to consider the most appropriate strategies and techniques associated with improving coordination and enhancing community transportation services statewide.

Governor-established working forum focused on coordination. In 2005, Governor Doyle issued a directive for staff across state agencies to work together on coordination of human service transportation issues. Among other things, this resulted in the creation of the Interagency Council on Transportation Coordination (ICTC). As of summer 2007, the ICTC has been meeting for about 18 months. The council has already begun to work on key coordination issues including the development of a state coordination model, and sponsorship of a statewide conference on coordination.

Coordination is recognized as important strategy to improve transportation services. Staff in several state agencies acknowledge and recognize the importance of coordination as a strategy to meet transportation needs, a recognition that is mutually reinforced through the ICTC. State level support for coordination will likely prove to be an essential ingredient as coordination efforts progress.

On-going efforts at state level to engage local program sponsors – Several of the state agency programs and grant managers discussed on-going efforts to “market” their programs and reach out to local entities to ensure that they were aware of the funding opportunities and understood how to access them. Such proactive efforts to encourage participation in the program and support potential grant applicants in the process will work to create opportunities for new programs and strengthen relationships between state administrators and local program sponsors.

Joint funding, administration and management of transportation programs. In 2007, two competitive grant programs are being administered and funded by more




than one state agency. In each case, the grant programs are combining federal and/or state resources to fund collaborative efforts that meet the collective program goals. Jointly funding and managing these programs increases the financial resources available for new and innovative programs and lowers the local matching requirements; it also provides a clear example and direction for working together. The two jointly funded programs are WETAP and New Freedom (See Chapter 3).

On-going efforts to enhance access to federal grant programs and streamline the process – WisDOT staff is actively exploring opportunities and ways to increase awareness and understanding about available resources for local transportation programs. These efforts include jointly administering transportation programs with other agencies (via WETAP and New Freedom) as well as conducting considerable site visits and outreach efforts, holding conferences, and developing working groups comprised of local stakeholders. Staff is considering and evaluating ways the federal grant process may be streamlined and improved so the process is more accessible to a multitude of organizations. Ideas under consideration include streamlining the application process so all grant applications are due at the same time and the subsequent timing of funding is also coordinated. A second idea under consideration is to allow sponsors to submit a project, rather than grant application to WisDOT; WisDOT would be responsible for finding appropriate grant resources to fund the project. These efforts should reduce confusion for grantees, make the application process more accessible to potential project sponsors and improve the quality of applications.

Wisconsin has additional federal resources available for transportation programs in rural and small urbanized areas. As discussed in Chapter 3, Wisconsin has historically supported small urban and rural public transit agencies. As part of SAFETEA-LU Wisconsin was selected as a demonstration site for the federal Supplemental Transportation Rural Assistance Program (STRAP). These additional resources, approximately $2.0 million year, are available annually for four years to help study, expand and enhance rural transportation services at 80% of deficit.

Barriers and Challenges Efforts to improve and expand coordination in Wisconsin also face challenges moving forward. Some of these barriers result from the historic government structure in Wisconsin and others result from recent experience changing traditional models. This section seeks to inventory and document these potential barriers and challenges to ensure they are addressed and considered as coordination strategies are developed and prioritized. Our assessment of the key barriers and challenges facing the State of Wisconsin as it increases efforts to expand coordination systems include:

Demographic trends suggest that the demand for transportation services in Wisconsin’s small urban and rural areas will increase. Wisconsin’s demographic trends suggest that the current portion of the population age 65 or more will increase from its current rate of approximately 13% to more than 20% by 2025.




This trend coupled with increased support for aging-in-place means the demand for community transportation services will increase over time, with much of this population located in small urban and rural areas.

The existing community transportation delivery system for small urban and rural transportation services in Wisconsin is fragmented. Historically, Wisconsin has been a strong supporter of small urban public transit systems. Currently there are some 68 public transit agencies in the State that provide considerable mobility to Wisconsin’s residents in small urban areas. On the other hand, public transit systems are required by statute to provide 2/3 of rides within the urban area and remaining 1/3 of rides outside of an urbanized area. This has effectively separated rural and small urban transportation systems and discouraged public transit from operating rural services by limiting transit operator service areas. Consequently, the provision of rural transportation has largely fallen to the specialized transportation sector and provided largely by county government and non-profit organizations. Separating the small urban and rural system has fragmented service delivery such that rural services are nearly always provided by human service organizations (either county government or non-profit operators) and public transit services have not played a regional role.

Fragmented small urban and rural transportation service creates gaps in service delivery. Because small urban systems are primarily operated by public transit organizations, they are typically oriented towards serving the general public. Human services transportation, on the other hand, is typically oriented towards specific clientele, older adults and persons with disabilities. While human service programs often provide a more appropriate level of service in terms of driver assistance and passenger comfort, services are frequently available only to a specific portion of the population and/or to specific agency programming. These characteristics can lead to two key service gaps – some segments of the population do not have access to any transportation service (i.e., individuals not affiliated with a specific organization or participating in a particular program) and/or services are duplicated because organizations are focused on serving their specific clients or programs.

Few government services in Wisconsin use a regional service delivery model. While there are several regional organizations in Wisconsin, including regional planning commissions, workforce development areas and multi-county area agencies on aging, few of these regional entities contain the same geographic boundaries and most of the regional entities are not involved with directly providing services. The delivery of services in Wisconsin has historically been provided by county level government. As a result, there are few models for cooperation at a regional level. The lack of regional service delivery presents a challenge to coordination because many coordination efforts and strategies realize service efficiencies and fill service gaps through consolidating programs and working across jurisdictional boundaries. Public transportation services, particularly those for employment and medical purposes, often must cross county lines.




Several of the existing transportation programs are currently underutilized. Many of the existing federal and state funding programs are not fully utilized suggesting there are barriers between local project sponsors and access to the grant programs. Outreach to local project sponsors is critical to help understand why organizations are not applying for resources. State agency staff (both WisDOT and other agencies) are actively reaching out to local governments and organizations to understand why they are not submitting applications and working to address these concerns. WisDOT staff are examining other potential barriers such as the application process and matching requirements.

Local governments and non-profit organizations are challenged to raise matching resources. Similar with small urban and rural communities around the country, many local governments are challenged to raise matching resources for new or expanded transportation programs. Not only are rural areas challenged by a small tax base, but in the state of Wisconsin local entities have no special taxation powers and therefore must rely on property tax to fund local government programs and services. Local funding for transportation must compete with other demands on the general fund. Wisconsin state agencies are working to reduce the local matching requirements using state resources and combining funding programs.

Lack of consistent data information across programs and grants. Wisconsin administers multiple transportation grants and programs across several state agencies that fund transportation. For several of the transit funding programs data is available across all recipients in a format that is clear and consistent. The largest of these programs also have clear performance measures and benchmarks that permit transit planning staff to evaluate on-going operations and to identify agencies that are working well and/or struggling. Similar types of performance measures and data points are not collected consistently across all programs that fund transportation and many do not have an established method to measure and track agency or program performance. While requiring local entitles to collect large amounts of data can be burdensome, having a clear, concise, and consistent on-going method to track performance and progress across programs would help staff at many agencies have a better understanding of where success is being achieved, why they are struggling, and how to improve transportation services.

Wisconsin recently attempted a statewide brokerage system that was not successful. Wisconsin’s Medicaid program recently tried unsuccessfully to launch a statewide brokerage system to manage its transportation services. While some counties supported the brokerage model, most counties did not. The brokerage system was not successful in Wisconsin for a myriad of reasons, many of which stem from a lack of involvement with stakeholders during the planning process. This experience has left several individuals in state agencies wary about implementing statewide directives, the role of centralized service delivery models in Wisconsin, and changes to Medicaid transportation.

Small urban and rural areas face capacity issues with transportation providers. Comments from stakeholders suggest that many rural areas do not have enough transportation providers to meet the needs of the transit dependent population. The




lack of transportation capacity is a challenge that faces many government and non-profit social service organizations. Staff in the state Medicaid office also expressed concern over transportation capacity, especially in rural areas where Medicaid rates can make it difficult for operators to be profitable.

Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) An analysis of Wisconsin’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) is mapped in Figure 5-1. The study team prepared this analysis as a method to understand how the key strengths and opportunities work with existing weaknesses and threats to the system; the analysis will help us shape future coordination delivery models and ensure such models take advantage of the State’s assets while addressing potential liabilities.

Figure 5-1 Analysis of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats

Strengths Available resources & funding Enthusiastic, committed staff open and willing to

work together Existing network of public transit agencies Staff’s on-going marketing efforts

Weaknesses Lack of regional transportation service network Lack of regional service delivery network (for

any service) Fragmentation of public transit and human

service transportation providers; includes funding and service delivery

Underutilization of existing funding programs Local level challenges associated with finding

matching resources Lack of affordable transportation options Program regulations/requirements that hamper

coordination

Opportunities Interagency Council on Coordination Multi-agency sponsored WETAP and New

Freedom programs DHFS ADRC delivery model DWD Job Center delivery model STRAP Funding State starting to offer financial incentives for

coordination through WETAP and New Freedom – potential for more

Threats Increasing demand for service Experience with Medicaid brokerage model Current coordination champions nearing

retirement Capacity issues in rural areas “Turf” issues Lack of coordination requirements and

incentives at state level Reluctance to reach across all transportation

programs (Medicaid) Programmatic and policy barriers in

transportation services required for several human service and medical programs




Chapter 6. Key Findings/Next Steps Overview As shown in Chapter 5, the State of Wisconsin possesses significant assets and opportunities as it moves forward with its coordination efforts, but there are still significant challenges and barriers. As we reviewed the existing federal and state program goals and funding opportunities and considered these in light of interviews and discussions with staff across all state agencies, we identified a series of objectives that underscore the provision of community transportation services. Accordingly, as the study team moves forward with recommendations and strategies to develop a statewide human service transportation coordination model, we will look for opportunities to:

Strengthen and support existing transportation services, especially for the target populations of persons with disabilities, older adults and persons with low incomes;

Increase mobility options to enhance rural transportation services;

Work toward the development of more regional transportation services and options;

Develop long term, sustainable funding sources for transportation services, especially in rural and small urban areas; and

Remove obstacles to coordination.

Key Findings The study will work toward these objectives by identifying strategies and programs that strengthen state level support for coordination by recommending policies and strategies that correct existing inefficiencies and create new opportunities. At this point in the study, we have prepared a list of preliminary, broad-scale findings that attempt to incorporate opportunities and challenges facing Wisconsin and also commence efforts towards these goals. We offer this preliminary guidance as an initial step towards the coordination model. They reflect the current stage of the research which has concentrated on the state agency funding programs and has not included the perspectives of local governments and organizations.

Outreach and communication with local entities is essential. Future coordination models will likely include techniques to support and incorporate communication between state agencies and local organizations. The geographic size and diversity of the State of Wisconsin combined with diversity of funding programs, application processes, and eligibility requirements means some potential program sponsors may not be aware of or understand how to access funding. Continued efforts to reach out to potential project sponsors at the local level are essential. It is also important that outreach and communication efforts are two-way; as the state




agencies educate and inform local entities of their programs and opportunities, state agencies should also seek out local perspectives, concerns, and priorities.

Lastly, as existing cross-agency programs (i.e., WETAP and New Freedom) build success and momentum, success stories (done through best practice examples) gained through these programs should be actively evaluated, marketed and promulgated so that other regions and communities can learn from the success.

Continue to demonstrate coordination at state level through joint funding programs, and increased coordination of grant application process. Wisconsin has already taken steps to increase coordination at the state level. As recognized by staff, there are steps that can be taken internally to streamline the grant process that will demonstrate coordination and increase access to state funding programs, including coordinating application timing and/or working more closely with staff to determine appropriate funding sources.

Use County level needs assessments to determine if regional service delivery models may be appropriate. Consider potential incentives for collaborative projects as well as sponsoring demonstration projects. In the long term, regional transportation service delivery models may be appropriate as Wisconsin develops sustainable, coordinated community transportation systems. The Study Team recognizes that that the State of Wisconsin does not currently have strong regional infrastructure to implement programs. We also acknowledge the recent unsuccessful experiences moving to statewide service delivery. At the same time, we recognize the potential value of creating regional service delivery systems for community transportation systems, despite the strong role of county governments in delivery service. Despite the strong county-based delivery model, we will examine applications for regional service delivery models. The importance of regional service delivery models is anticipated to increase, especially as the population ages and the demand for transportation services increases.

Future recommendations will likely keep the regional service delivery model at the forefront of potential coordination models and start to identify strategies that support an incremental approach to moving toward regional systems. An incremental approach will likely involve sponsoring demonstration projects and providing incentives for multi-county and/or multi-agency projects. An incremental approach may also include using disincentives, such as limiting the number of grants available to any single county to push local entities to take a more regional approach.

Strengthen support for coordination across all state agencies. As a multi-agency coordinating council, the ICTC already provides a forum for agencies to discuss and work together on improving transportation services and programs. This Council should continue to strengthen and expand the role of individual committee




participants and increase the commitment to coordination across state agencies. There are several potential ways that the ICTC and the State of Wisconsin could strengthen coordination efforts:

Improve program management at the state agency level by creating reporting requirements and/or performance measures that reflect coordination goals and objectives and using these consistently across programs. This will also work to support program sponsors seeking financing across funding programs and agencies.

Encourage increased coordination among federal transportation programs and between federal and state programs. Federal and state capital programs such as Section 5310/s85.22 funding could be coordinated with 5311 operating assistance funds. Capital purchases could likewise be coordinated with DHFS funding operating assistance.

Require coordination among state funded programs. The s85.21 resources used to fund specialized transportation programs, for example, would likely benefit from coordination with other local transportation programs, including 5310/s85.22 capital resources as well as WETAP and New Freedom programs.

Actively looking for ways to bring Medicaid transportation into community transportation service delivery models. Other states and regions have created models where Medicaid transportation is provided by local public transit and/or other community transportation providers in ways that both improve the quality of services and enhance the financial viability of local operators.

Incorporate Department of Public Instruction in ICTC and coordination efforts, especially for small urban and rural areas.

APPENDIX A INTERVIEW GUIDE



Page A-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Appendix A. Interview Guide Task Objective: Identify and document state agency programs that fund human service transportation and the extent to which these funded services are used and coordinated. Establish a baseline assessment of transportation funding at state agency level. Department/Agency/Program Overview P1. What is the overall (general) mission of your agency? P2. What are the key goals and objectives associated with this mission? P3. Is there a particular statute that governs your agency/program objectives? P4. How does transportation fit in with your agency mission and goals? P5. What sort of transportation programs do you fund and/or manage? (Please list each program, eligibility criteria and/or trip purposes associated with each program.) P6. What eligibility criteria are associated with participating in your agency/program? Are there additional (or different) criteria associated with receiving transportation services? Transportation Services T1. How does your organization (and/or local partners) provide or pay for transportation services to clients? For example:

• Engage in direct services (i.e., operating vehicles/managing systems) • Contract with other public agencies to provide services • Contract with third parties to provide services • Buy transit/paratransit passes • Reimburse volunteer drivers or self-drives

T2. Are your transportation programs/services available statewide or at a regional level, e.g., county or group of counties? If at regional level, where are they available? (Please identify which counties to which region.) T3. How do you manage transportation programs/services (including contracted services) within your organization? T4. How long has your organization managed/offered transportation programs/ services in this way? If you have tried other types of service, what have you tried? Are these still used? If not, why not? Are you satisfied with how transportation services are delivered? Why or why not? T5. Are there limitations or restrictions on the types or trip purposes of transportation programs/services that are considered an eligible activity or service under your current




agency/program guidelines? For example, can you provide direct services, e.g., operate a van or shuttle? Are you permitted to purchase or contract services from a third party? T6. How do you pay for the transportation service provided, including both payment to the individual and the organization offering the service? For example, if an individual receives services, how does your organization reimburse the user and/or service provider? Funding for Transportation F1. What are your primary funding sources for transportation programs/services? Are there requirements associated with this funding, i.e., local/state matching requirements? If yes, what are they? F2. How do you allocate funding – across programs and geographic areas? How much funding is provided to which organizations/entities? Can we please see historic data on funding allocations? Is it formula based? If so, what is the formula? F3. Do you have data available for state and local level expenditures for transportation services associated with your program/agency for the past three years? If yes, please provide. F4. Are the federal/state/local funding provided for each program keeping up with the demand? Data Collection/Information Tracking D1. What sort of transportation data is collected as part of your program? For example do you keep track on the users and use of transportation services, such as?

• Demographic information on individuals • Level of participation (#/clients) • Number of trips • Trip information (frequency, origin/destination, mode, etc) • Cost per trip • Fleet size and types of vehicles used • Operational data (hours of operation, vehicle productivity, etc)

D2. How is data collected and tracked? Is the data used? Can we get a copy of any transportation program/services data? D3. Are data collection activities required by statute or funding source? What other data reporting is required? D4. Has your organization made or noticed significant changes in the way programs are delivered?




Coordination C1. Do you feel you have a good sense of the transportation needs of your clients? In your opinion, do the programs and services offered meet these needs? Why/why not? C2. Does your organization currently participate in any coordination activities? If so, which activities are you involved with? (Please probe to get the interviewee to describe the coordination activities they are doing.) How long have you been participating in these efforts? C3. Is your organization agency/program required by any statutory or programmatic authority to participate in coordination? Is funding associated with any of these requirements? If so, what are they? C4. What is your opinion about coordination efforts? Do you think the on-going efforts (if any) have had an impact on service quality or delivery? Why/why not? C5. Do you feel other coordination strategies have the potential to improve service delivery? Why/why not? In your opinion what are some of the major obstacles to coordination? C6. What do you feel are the main benefits and disadvantages of coordination strategies? Would you like to do more or less work in this area? Do you have any ideas to improve coordination?




Cross Check against Requirements Topic/Category Relevant Question(s)

Policy Framework Statutory authority P3, T5, D3, C3 Program goals and objectives P1 – P5 Relation of transportation services to goals of program P4 Eligibility requirements P5, P6 Coordination requirements C3 Data collection requirements D1, D2 Allocation of funds F2 Program and Structure Eligible activities and services T4, T5 Type of user/subsidy T6 Administrative responsibility T1, T4 Change and trends D5 Coordination potential C3, C6 (C4) Funding source F1 Annual expenditure (local/level) F2, F3 Service Characteristics Annual units of service D1 Passenger demographics D1 Trip costs (rides, miles, hours) D1 Fleet and operations statistics D1 Service Areas T2 Current Coordination Efforts C1

APPENDIX B LIST OF COMPLETED INTERVIEWS



Page B-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.

Appendix B. List of Completed Interviews

Department of Transportation Rod Clark, Director, Bureau of Transit, Local Roads, Rails and Harbors

John Alley, Chief, Transit Section

Bobbie Beson-Crone, Program Manager, HST (by telephone)

Becky Soderholm; Program Manager STRAP

Jess Lathrop, Program Manager, Section 5311/RTAP/s85.21

David Vickman, Lead Worker; Section 5309/New Freedom

David Lowe, Lead Worker, Section 85.20

Beth Trautsch; Program Manager, Section 5310/s85.22

Department of Health and Family Services Gail Schwersenka, Section Chief, Bureau of Aging and Disability Resources

Jim Schmidlkofer, Policy Analyst, Bureau of Aging and Disability Resources

Astra Iheukumere, Medicaid Policy Analyst, Bureau of Fee-for-Service-Health Care Benefits

Stuart Gilkison, Employment Policy Analyst, Wisconsin Pathways to Independence (Medicaid Infrastructure Grants) (by phone)

Department of Workforce Development Sharon Berge, Program Manager, Wisconsin Employee Transportation Assistance Program

Kim Pomeroy, Director, Workforce Development Area 6 (by telephone)

Department of Veterans Affairs Chris Schuldes, Director, Bureau of State Veterans Benefits

APPENDIX C OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL FUNDING

AVAILABLE FOR TRANSPORTATION (BY DEPARTMENT AND PROGRAM)



Appendix C. Overview of Federal Funding Available for Transportation (by Department and Program)

No. Federal Department Division Funding Program Program Objective Funding Type (1)

Application to Community

Transportation 1 Department of

Agriculture Forest Service Economic Action Program Help rural communities diversify and strengthen

economic base Earmarked Low

2 Rural Business-Cooperative service; Rural Housing Service; Rural Utilities Service

Rural Community Development Initiative

Provides loans and grants for rural business development and community facilities

Formula or Block Grant

Medium

3 Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities

Support economic growth and sustainable community development

Requires partnerships (3)

Medium

4 Department of Commerce

Economic Development Administration

Grants for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities

Grants for capital facilities in economically distressed areas


Medium

5 Department of Education

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitive Services

Centers for Indepdent Living Grants to independent living councils and centers for independent living


Medium

6 Supported Employment State Grants Support collaborative programs to provide employment services for individuals with significant disabilities


Low

7 Rehabilitation Services - Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States

Support a range of rehabilitation services Formula or Block Grant

High

8 Deparment of Health and Human Services (DHHS)

Administration on Aging Special Programs for the Agining - Title IIIB

Provide supportive services to older persons Formula or Block Grant

High

9 National Family Caregiver Support services for persons caring for elderly family members


Low

10 Special Programs for the Agingin - Title VI

Authorized by Title VI of Older Americans Act, includes support services for special populations


High

11 Administration for Children and Families

Community Services Block Grant Funding for broad range of social services for low-income persons


Medium

12 Developmental Disability Basic Support and Advoacy Grants

Services for persons with developmental disabilities


Medium

13 REFUGEE AND ENTRANT ASSISTANCE_VOLUNTARY AGENCY PROGRAMS

Family of programs that provide services for refugees


Medium

Page C-1 • Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates Inc.




No. Federal Department Division Funding Program Program Objective Funding Type (1) Transportation 14 Deparment of Health

and Human Services (DHHS) (con’t)

Administration for Children and Families

Social Services Block Grants Title XX - formula program to state welfare agencies for social services


Medium

15 Temporyar Assistance for Needy Families

Formula grants for social services Formula or Block Grant

High

16 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid services

Medicaid Ensure medical assistnace to qualified low-income persons and persons with disabilities


High

17 Medicaid Supplemenental Insurance Initiate and Expand child health assistance for uninsured low-income children


Medium

18 Health Resources and Services Administration

Healthy Communities Access Program Competitive grants to increase access to health care

Special (4) Low

19 Consolidated Health Centers Funding for community based health care centers Requires partnerships (3)

Medium

20 Healthy Start Initiative Supports community oriented approach to reduce infant mortality


Medium

21 HIV Care Formula Grants Help communities provide HIV/AIDS care Formula or Block Grant

Medium

22 Maternal and Child Health - Federal Consolidated Programs

Help provide health services to mothers,infants and children


Medium

23 State Rural Hospital Flexibilty Program Discretionary grants to rural hospitals to address community health needs

Competitive Federal Grant

Medium

24 Rural Health Care Services - Rural health Network Development Plan

Funds for demonstration grants to expand the availability of health services in rural areas


Medium

25 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

Office of Community Planning and Development

Community Development Block Grants - Brownfields

Helps communities develop and enhance brownfield sites


Medium

26 Community Development Block Grants Program supports wide variety of community and economic development activities


Medium

27 Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS

Granst for housing and support service for low income persons with HIV/AIDS


Low

28 Rural Housing and Economic Development

Techncial assistance and capacity building funds in support of housing and community developmetn projects


Low

29 Employerment Zones and Enterprise Communities

Program to help distressed areas improve themselves


Medium





No. Federal Department Division Funding Program Program Objective Funding Type (1) Transportation 30 Department of Housing

and Urban Development (HUD) (con’t)

Office of Housing Supportive Housing for the Elderly (202)

Helps private non-profit entities provide housing and support services for low income seniors


Low

31 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilties (Section 811)

Helps private non-profit entities provide housing and support service for low income persons with disabilities


Low

32 Demolition and Revitalization of Severly Distresed Public Housing (Hope V)

Allows public housing authorities to improve living environemnts for residents in severly distressed housing


Medium

33 Employment and Training Administration

Senior Community Service Employment Program

Title V of Older Americans Act for subsidized employment and related services


High

34 WIA Adult Program Funding for youth, adult and dislocated worker employment and training services


High

35 Veterans' Employment and Training Service

Veterans' Workforce Investment Programs (VWIP))


Low

36 Homeless Veterans Reintegration Project

Support veterans transition from military service to non-military employment


Medium

37 Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Federal-Aid Highway Program and Federal Lands Highway Program

Reimbursement for expenses related to highway construction and transportation projects


High

38 Funding for public roads and transit facilities serving Federal and Indian lands

Special (4) High

39 Support technological solutions for transportation issues


High

40 Discretionary grants to improve transportation system efficiency

Earmarked High

41 Federal Transit Adminstration (FTA)

JARC Support job access and reverse commute needs Formula or Block Grant

High

42 Section 5303 and 5305 - Metropolitan Planning

Funds for metropolitan planning organizations Formula or Block Grant

High

43 Section 5311 - Nonurbanized Area Formula Program

Supports public transportaiotn in areas with population of less than 50,000


High

45 Section 5310 - Elderly and Persons with Disabilities Program

Funding for states to assist nonprofit groups and public bodies in meeting needs of seniors and persons with disabilities


High

46 CAPITAL AND TRAINING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FOR OVER-THE-ROAD BUS ACCESSIBILITY

Help private operators of over-the-road buses finance portion of costs associated with meeting ADA requirements


High





No. Federal Department Division Funding Program Program Objective Funding Type (1)


Transportation 47 Department of

Transportation (con’t) Federal Transit Adminstration (FTA) (con’t)

Section 5309 - Fixed Guideway Modernization Bus and Bus Facilities New Starts

Capital assistance for new bus/rail projects Earmarked High

48 Section 5307 - Urbanized Area Formula Program

Funding to urban areas for transit capital and operating


High

49 Department of Veterans Affairs

Veterans Health Administration

Veterans Medical Care - Hospitalization and Medical Services

Hospital-based and outpatient medical services for veterans (includes transportation)

Special (4) Low

50 Corporation for National and Community Service

Retired and Senior Volunteer program Provides volunteer and community service oportunities


Medium

Source: Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA), Opportunities for Federal Investment and Nelson/Nygaard Notes: (1) Refers to how funds are awarded and distributed (2) Refers to relevance of program to community transportation services. High means program is routinely used for community transportatation; Medium means program funds have been used for community

transportation; and Low means program could support community transportation but has limited history with such use (3) Requires partnership means to participate in funding program, program sponsor must contact an existing grantee and explore subcontracts or partership arrangements (4) References atypical program funding types.

wisconsin department of transportation...human service coordination model • technical memo 1 final...

Documents